The trick Canon are missing here is:1. Take the 1D42. Remove the badge and stick a 7D2 badge on it (or 7D Sport)3. Sell it for $2500

It would be awesome if they did it and it would be possible, but my guess is that the 1d series actually use expensive parts that result in the well-known and infamous price of these things ... that's why the 1d bodies even when used a lot still sell for horrendous prices.

The rest of EF-S family are 'kit lenses' for this or that camera model (18-55, 55-250, 17-85, 15-85, 18-135 and 18-200). These lenses were needed to make specific camera models attractive to some target users at some point in time.

Those who purchased 7D are supposed to use its 'kit lens' = EF-S 15-85. If they use EF 300 lens with 7D -- they are probably regarded by Canon as 'cheaters' who managed to get away from purchase of 5D.

Actually the selection of consumer-priced EF-S zoom lenses is a lot greater than EF lenses. If I counted correctly there are about a dozen EF-S lenses in the "normal" range compared to about four non-L full frame zoom lenses in the "normal" range.

Canon produced an excellent 55-250mm very low cost zoom exclusively for APS-C cameras. They've never offered anything of comparable quality and price to full frame users. Full frame buyers can choose from some very bad non-IS zooms, a mediocre IS version, an overpriced DO lens or an "L" lens. And that "L" lens has from the beginning been marketed equally to both full frame and APS-C users.

Yes, in terms of prime lenses, Canon has never done much for APS-C users, but some of that may simply reflect the changing nature of lens design and the market for new lenses. Most of Canon's prime lenses were developed well before the digital age. Canon has been slow to upgrade and modernize these prime lenses, so it's not like EF-S primes were being neglected while Canon was forging ahead with new EF primes.

Let's also stipulate that beyond about 75mm, there is really no reason to have a specific EF-S lens. The 55-250 EF-S IS being an exception to that rule. Any of the three 50mm lenses work fine as a substitute for an 85mm portrait lens. The 85mm, 100mm and 135mm EF lenses all serve as short telephotos... and so on up the line.

So it looks like: Canon never treated APS-C cameras too seriously. These cameras were needed and intended to bring new users into EOS system. APS-C camera users were supposed to purchase EF lenses (with existing EF-S lens lineup being so limited) and to make a switch to FF cameras 'some time later' (= now!).

Actually, these cameras were "needed and intended" to offer an affordable digital camera to consumers. Full frame sensor fabrication was just too expensive to achieve mass market adoption.

Canon and Nikon may have once thought they could move everyone back to full frame.

But, markets and technology evolve and companies aren't in control of that evolution.

The quality differences between full frame and APS-C are much smaller than most on this forum care to admit and for the majority of users under the majority of shooting conditions, the differences are imperceptible. On the other hand, the cost differential between APS-C and full frame, has not shrunk as much as some might have expected.

There is still a substantial "cost of entry" into the world of full frame. Even with recent price cuts, the cost differential between the 70D and 6D is significant and that between the 7D and 5DIII even more so. For much of the market, that cost difference will never be worth it for a small, perceived improvement in image quality.

And, for enthusiasts, that cost of entry grows exponentially for certain customers – such as sports and wildlife enthusiasts. If you are an APS-C user, you can buy the equivalent of a 480mm f4 lens for under $1,500, vs about $10,000 for a 500mm f4 for full frame. That's enough to keep many enthusiasts demanding better and more sophisticated APS-C cameras.

Regardless of what their initial intentions might have been, the reality is that the APS-C market is now too big and too independent for either Canon or Nikon to risk alienating and losing customers by not meeting the consumers' demands.

is an aps-c sensor really cheaper to produce? You would think the 70d sensor with its smaller photo sites and dual pixel tech would be more expensive than the 6d sensor which is about the same mp count?

Pixel size doesn't matter significantly (as long as the density is achievable with the process scale being used (500 nm, 180 nm, etc.). Area matters - you get a lot more APS-C sensors than FF from a wafer; the larger sensor also means a higher QC failure rate, raising the cost further.

I suppose that's true, I just don't think that it is the huge cost difference its made out to be and if its the sensors area and not pixel count is what makes it expensive then they should hurry up with the high mp ff sensor

Neuro's got it right here.

The silicon wafers used for IC and sensor fabrication have a fixed manufacturing cost per wafer*. So if you can get ten times the number of good parts out of a wafer, the part cost will be - everything else equal - 1/10th the original cost.

There are a couple of things that affect the actual yield of a wafer:1. How many (rectangular) dies that can be put on the (round) wafer. The "square peg in round hole" problem. See Wikipedia. Plugging in some numbers for a 300mm wafer size, I get 1610/610 = 2.64 times more APS-C sensors than FF sensors.2. Intrinsic die yield. This is usually modeled as falling exponentially with the die area, so an APS-C sensor will intrinsically have exp(1.62)~=13 times higher yield than a FF sensor. The yield is based on how likely fabrication defects will not impact a die of size X, with an inherent defect density of A0. The defect density is related to the fabrication line itself (it usually starts out high, and then improves over the lifetime of the fab line, as the engineers learn how to control and improve the process line). 3. Feature density. This reflects how dense the wires/transistors etc are, and will somewhat counteract the die yield above. I'll ignore this below, since I don't have data and this has never been significant enough for me to bother about when considering the yield of a particular product.

So for APS-C vs FF sensors, fabricated on the same line, a single 300mm wafer will yield ~2.64 * exp(1.62) ~ 34 times more good dies of APS-C size than of FF size.

I probably forgot a number of details in relation to the yield - apologies in advance for that - but hopefully this shows why an APS-C sensor will always have a cost advantage over a FF sensor.

As a reference, the cost of a processed 180nm wafer for mixed analog/digital designs can be on the order of USD2000 (ex fab cost). Lower geometry wafers are generally more expensive, higher geometry less expensive.

*) This assumes a number of technicalities, such as using the same fab options, metal layers, equipment utilization rates etc etc etc. To the first order and for this discussion, this is a good assumption.

3. The 7d mk II MUST be APS-C. I have discussed many times on this forum the superior nature of APS-C.

Canon, listen, or let the K3 eat your ever dwindling customer base...

+ 1 IMHO this is spot on an I think that Mark Dubovoy and other professional and semi-pro photographers need to let their photography company of choice know just how they feel about how unnecessarily complex cameras have become.

I don't need an swiss army knife camera that does everything but only does some things well, or marginally well. But the complexity thing that Mark Dubovoy addresses is really gotten out of hand. Don't the major camera manufacturers employ design engineers that are also photographers too!

My first DSLR was the Canon 40D. I picked it up ONCE, looked at all the dials and menus and went directly back to my film cameras. I even preferred to use my 4x5 than have to deal with the complexity of my DSLR. The 40D just sat unused. I remember going to a night photography workshop on Mare Island. Everyone had DSLR's except me. I chose to take my lowly Minolta X700 and a couple of fast lenses and a couple of rolls of HP5+ and I was good to go. I was shooting while the DSLR owners were busy navigating through menus and checking this setting and checking that setting. They were working harder with their cameras than I was. My exposures may have been longer and I needed to take film reciprocity into consideration but I didn't have anywhere near the fidget factor that my DSLR counterparts had. Made no sense.

And while I have transitioned to shooting digital, I still have a couple of film cameras that I occasionally use.

To borrow a phrase from fitness guru Susan Powter: "STOP THE INSANITY !!"

As in if you get 1 failed sensor out of 1000 for a full frame, its not going to really matter all that much that its even only 1 in a million for the APS-C sensors. Its going to be much closer to just the actual 1.6 square, ie about 3 times as much.

So depending on the numbers, we could be talking a $10 sensor vs a ~$30 one, or 10 vs 340.

The gap in price between the 6D and and a 60D or the like does seem surprisingly close though.

Has anyone else read this story over at *********, I rarely go to this site but happened to check yesterday & read this article about "No 7DMK II", concerned me after reading all the interest in a 7DMK II here at CR, I can imagine Blood in the Streets here at CR if Canon did decide not to do a 7DMK II.

Has anyone else read this story over at *********, I rarely go to this site but happened to check yesterday & read this article about "No 7DMK II", concerned me after reading all the interest in a 7DMK II here at CR, I can imagine Blood in the Streets here at CR if Canon did decide not to do a 7DMK II.

Someone started a separate thread on this, but really, it makes more sense to continue the discussion here.

I'm not buying it. Companies don't like to switch product names. Too much invested to just drop a name and start over. Particularly unlikely with something as popular as the 7D. Even Nikon didn't drop the D600 name despite how badly damaged it is. Strikes me as more rumor trolling.

As in if you get 1 failed sensor out of 1000 for a full frame, its not going to really matter all that much that its even only 1 in a million for the APS-C sensors. Its going to be much closer to just the actual 1.6 square, ie about 3 times as much.

So depending on the numbers, we could be talking a $10 sensor vs a ~$30 one, or 10 vs 340.

The gap in price between the 6D and and a 60D or the like does seem surprisingly close though.

The fail rate is not linear.Let's say the pass rate is 90 percent for APS-C. A full frame sensor has an area of 1.6^2, or 2.56 times an APCS sensor. The pass rate for FF is .9^2.56 or 76 percent. (with more area, a flaw is more likely to occur)

If you said an APSC sensor cost $10 to make, then the cost per working sensor is $11You can fit 2.6 times as many APSC sensors on a wafer than you can fit FF sensors.... that would mean that a FF sensor costs $26 to make, but with a 76 percent pass rate, the cost per working FF sensor becomes $34... over three times the cost per sensor.

If the pass rate for APS-C was 50 percent, then the FF pass rate becomes 17 percent. Cost per working sensor becomes $20 for APSC and $153 for FF, or 7 1/2 times the price

If the pass rate for APS-C was 25 percent, then the FF pass rate becomes 2.9 percent. Cost per working sensor becomes $40 for APSC and $897 for FF, or 22 1/2 times the price

This is what happens as you scale larger with lower yields... Image sensors are complex to fabricate and at the start of production you can expect yields lower than 10 percent, climbing higher as experience is gained. Nobody other than Canon knows what their yields are.. these numbers are just for the purpose of making a point, but 90 percent yield for an APSC might be achievable...

3. The 7d mk II MUST be APS-C. I have discussed many times on this forum the superior nature of APS-C.

Canon, listen, or let the K3 eat your ever dwindling customer base...

I'm not interested in video either (I was delighted to discover, after accidentally pressing it, that the movie button on the new OM-D can be assigned any one of a number of useful functions such as AF-assist or disabled altogether; perhaps that's true of all other cameras too...), and I also like the ideas of specialization and simplicity. We may be in a tiny minority, though (not only do people seem to like things that do everything, but I suspect that the longer the list of specifications, the more appealing it is to a certain sort of consumer).

Besides, these problems are exaggerated. It's easy not to use the movie functions in a camera (how much do they add to its cost), and some modern cameras, despite looking dauntingly complex, can be set up so that they are, in fact, extremely simple to use (the latest OM-D, for instance).

As for Pentax, its high-end dslrs have given better sensor performance than anyone else's for several years by some accounts (esp. DxO scores), even when they're using the same sensor as others, but that doesn't seem to have hurt Nikon, let alone Canon, and it's hard to see why it should start now. Even with its improvements, I don't think anyone is claiming that the K3's AF performance comes close to rivaling Canon's, and when it comes to lenses, not only does Pentax have nothing like the range of Canon, overall the quality isn't as good either (especially in terms of AF speed and accuracy). Sure, they have a few cute little primes (far more attractive aesthetically than anything made by Canon), but hardly any of them have really fast apertures and many of them have focus problems (speed and/or accuracy).

As it happens, before I switched to Canon I owned a K5 (five minutes with 5DII & 24-105L and I was sold), and am once again enjoying using a few old Pentax manual lenses (Takumar) because they work even better on my new OM-D (with its excellent and easy-to-use in-EVF magnification and focus assist). These new-fangled complex cameras have their advantages....

You keep working backwards though - if the yield for FF is high enough, the increased rate of failure becomes more and more irrelevant.

You quoted 90% or APS-C, but I dont see where that came from vs FF max rates possible - what is the max rate likely, and is 99, or 99.9 or whatever possible at some point or anything? The usefulness of your figures rest mostly on how often FF have to be failed, and to me thats the rate that we need to know about most.

Edit: So we seem to agree that the differences get smaller and smaller where the sensor price becomes comparatively irrelevant ie we talk 7 vs 30+ times. The 6D price alone shows either dumping is occurring, or the price of sensors are getting very low as part of the total cost - any improvement is going to have to be pretty amazing to overcome the introduction cost of something new with 10% rates etc etc.

Has anyone else read this story over at *********, I rarely go to this site but happened to check yesterday & read this article about "No 7DMK II", concerned me after reading all the interest in a 7DMK II here at CR, I can imagine Blood in the Streets here at CR if Canon did decide not to do a 7DMK II.

Someone started a separate thread on this, but really, it makes more sense to continue the discussion here.

I'm not buying it. Companies don't like to switch product names. Too much invested to just drop a name and start over. Particularly unlikely with something as popular as the 7D. Even Nikon didn't drop the D600 name despite how badly damaged it is. Strikes me as more rumor trolling.

I tend to agree, but then I'm an owner of the 1DMK IV & the 1DsMKIII, and Canon without too much forward warning, if any, dropped the APSH format & the higher MP FF sensor & went with the 1Dx, but from my perspective although I was concerned to start I think it was a smart decision, the 1Dx has proven to be a pretty good piece of gear, but I do miss that higher MP Sensor.

I never quite worked out why Canon couldn't implement the same set up that Nikon have had for some time, the capability of doing in camera crop, I owned the D800 for a year before I sold it off, but that in camera crop was a pretty useful tool I thought.

Logged

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing

You keep working backwards though - if the yield for FF is high enough, the increased rate of failure becomes more and more irrelevant.

You quoted 90% or APS-C, but I dont see where that came from vs FF max rates possible - what is the max rate likely, and is 99, or 99.9 or whatever possible at some point or anything? The usefulness of your figures rest mostly on how often FF have to be failed, and to me thats the rate that we need to know about most.

Otara

The max rate is obviously 100 percent, where the FF chip will cost 2.6 times the APS-C. When in "research mode", the yields may be down to 10 percent or lower... it's probably around 50 percent by the time they start making prototypes, and probably 75 percent or better by the time they go into production, and probably 90 percent after a half year or so of production....

The point to make here, is that even with 90 percent yield the cost is about 3 times APS-C, while perfect yields give 2.6 times.... the difference caused by yield during production is insignificant..

I have no idea what it costs to make an APS-C sensor, but an EOS-M can be bought for $300. Even if you said the sensor cost $100 (and 1/3 of the retail cost of a camera is insanely high), then by the above math we could expect a FF sensor to cost $300..... realistically, I would expect an APS-C sensor to cost UNDER $20 to make, and that would mean $50-$60 for a FF sensor.... $40 difference in sensor cost does not explain the price difference between APS-C and FF cameras.

Has anyone else read this story over at *********, I rarely go to this site but happened to check yesterday & read this article about "No 7DMK II", concerned me after reading all the interest in a 7DMK II here at CR, I can imagine Blood in the Streets here at CR if Canon did decide not to do a 7DMK II.

Someone started a separate thread on this, but really, it makes more sense to continue the discussion here.

I'm not buying it. Companies don't like to switch product names. Too much invested to just drop a name and start over. Particularly unlikely with something as popular as the 7D. Even Nikon didn't drop the D600 name despite how badly damaged it is. Strikes me as more rumor trolling.

I tend to agree, but then I'm an owner of the 1DMK IV & the 1DsMKIII, and Canon without too much forward warning, if any, dropped the APSH format & the higher MP FF sensor & went with the 1Dx, but from my perspective although I was concerned to start I think it was a smart decision, the 1Dx has proven to be a pretty good piece of gear, but I do miss that higher MP Sensor.

I never quite worked out why Canon couldn't implement the same set up that Nikon have had for some time, the capability of doing in camera crop, I owned the D800 for a year before I sold it off, but that in camera crop was a pretty useful tool I thought.

The 60D has an in-camera crop mode for video probably not what you want to hear

Has anyone else read this story over at *********, I rarely go to this site but happened to check yesterday & read this article about "No 7DMK II", concerned me after reading all the interest in a 7DMK II here at CR, I can imagine Blood in the Streets here at CR if Canon did decide not to do a 7DMK II.

Someone started a separate thread on this, but really, it makes more sense to continue the discussion here.

I'm not buying it. Companies don't like to switch product names. Too much invested to just drop a name and start over. Particularly unlikely with something as popular as the 7D. Even Nikon didn't drop the D600 name despite how badly damaged it is. Strikes me as more rumor trolling.

I tend to agree, but then I'm an owner of the 1DMK IV & the 1DsMKIII, and Canon without too much forward warning, if any, dropped the APSH format & the higher MP FF sensor & went with the 1Dx, but from my perspective although I was concerned to start I think it was a smart decision, the 1Dx has proven to be a pretty good piece of gear, but I do miss that higher MP Sensor.

I never quite worked out why Canon couldn't implement the same set up that Nikon have had for some time, the capability of doing in camera crop, I owned the D800 for a year before I sold it off, but that in camera crop was a pretty useful tool I thought.

I have never known Canon to really show much interest in directly competing model for model, feature for feature, with Nikon or any other competitor. As a matter of fact, one of the things I really like about Canon is the fact that they really do seem to listen to the most important and vocal collective voices of their own direct customers.

For all the complaints people have levied at Canon for the "faults" of their latest generation of cameras, Canon listened intently to, and delivered exactly, what their most important customers were calling for. The sports and wedding photographers in particular demanded, DEMANDED, better high ISO performance, faster frame rates, better AF, and in the case of sports shooters, FEWER MEGAPIXELS! In the case of wedding photographers, I think the one ubiquitous request was a better AF system for the 5D III. Canon DELIVERED. They delivered exquisitely. They focused on the things their customers asked for, and pushed out a camera with the most amazing high ISO performance I've ever seen (at least, when it comes to bird and sports photography, I've seen quite a number of entirely usable ISO 51200 photos, at magazine print and web sizes you can barely tell there is any noise at all.)

There has never been a large, vocal outcry for Canon to add dynamic cropping modes to their cameras. There are certainly some niche groups of photographers who want it, but they seem to be far from the majority of Canon's customers. The largest groups have not only the most buying power, but the most important voice when it comes to demanding what they want from the largest photography company on the planet. That is, fundamentally, the sports/olympics, wedding/portraiture, and maybe in aggregate landscape/wildlife/bird photographers. You can kind of lump sports/olympics/wildlife/bird together as well...that's the action group, and in most of the ways that count, they all need the same thing: High ISO, high speed shutter, very fast frame rate, highly accurate and fast AF. That singularly large group of photographers has Canon by the gonads, and their demands in aggregate will always reign supreme. Wedding/portraiture has similar needs, but they also benefit from much higher sensor resolution and could probably use more dynamic range as well...and they would probably make up the second largest group.

If Canon continues to listen to it's own customers as a guide for where they should direct their R&D funding, then I don't suspect we will see quite as many interesting features like dynamic crop sensors as we do from Nikon. I think we will see a direct response to the most vocal outcry from the greatest majority of users. I think higher resolution is probably the largest outcry right now...more resolution without a loss in IQ. Improved dynamic range is probably secondary to more resolution...although I am honestly not as sure that a call for more dynamic range is really strong enough to get Canon to act on it by the next generation camera releases. I don't see much call at all for any of the other various and small features that Nikon currently offers in their cameras that are not available in Canon cameras. Some certainly offer small conveniences, but until a very loud vocal majority demands it, I don't foresee Canon even batting an eye at them.

Lots of interesting thoughts here. Since this thread is still titled "Thinking Out Loud...." here goes....

I have had my 7d since the day it hit the shelves. It is still my "go to" action photography camera, despite purchasing the 5d2, and then replacing the 5d2 with a 5d3. While I'd love a 1DX, I cannot possibly justify the price, and the corresponding increase in cost for lenses that provide the same reach as my 7d/300f4 combo.

The 5d3 is simply awesome. When I can only bring 1 body, for whatever reason, the 5d3 comes along. It is outstanding for everything. It is vastly superior in low light, and for landscape and portrait photography. But there is something about the 7d that makes it a joy to use for all sports photography. It is a poor man's 1D4.

I will buy the 7d replacement, regardless of what they call it, if it provides 3 things: improved low light performance, improved image quality, and an APS-C sensor. Simply put, I'm a huge 7d fan.